Derigin suggested making a separate thread to discuss this topic since the FFA is being glutted with it, so I have done so.

For those not in the know, George Zimmerman was acquitted today of the murder of Trayvon Martin. A lot of people with opinions on it are talking about it, and those with the more extreme opinions are being very loud and proud about it. I made this thread as a place to discuss both the verdict in Zimmerman's trial, the trial itself, and race relations in general.

And please be civil. This is a very hair trigger topic for many people, so please don't degenerate into name calling and e-shouting.

I'll start this off with my original post on the subject from the FFA.

Good. The system worked here. The prosecution wasn't able to prove its case, and a lot of the witness testimony and whatnot showed that Zimmerman's self defense claim was not, in fact, bullshit. He used justifiable force against what he felt was an immediate threat to his life, and therefore he deserves to be excused of all wrongdoing and set free.

Also, the prosecution lost the moment they had Rachel Jeantel take the stand. She singlehandedly killed whatever chance they had of attaining a conviction against him.

Even if Zimmerman had to use force to defend himself after confronting Trayvon Martin, it's not hard to see that the entire incident is George Zimmerman's fault. Had he stayed home instead of playing Border Patrol on his street, Trayvon Martin would still be here and we wouldn't be talking about this. Or if George Zimmerman had perhaps listened to the 911 operator who specifically told him not to follow Trayvon Martin, then Trayvon Martin would still be here and we wouldn't be talking about this. And be honest; had you been confronted by some guy that had been following you in his vehicle down the road after dark, you would have been apprehensive as well. George Zimmerman is the catalyst that started in motion all the events that led to a teenager being shot dead.

And as for race relations: I realize that the news about the story often had the whole "White-on-Black Crime" spin to it, but no one likes to point out the fact that George Zimmerman is not white. He's a Mexican man with light skin. But that info didn't come out unto day two of the news cycle. By then, the damage had been done, and no one bothered to correct the mistake.

_________________One part the Führer, one part the Pope

inhumanist wrote:

"Fuck you, little Omar. Your school got reduced to rubble by an IDF missile, but Allah still gives you hope you say? Well that's just because you've never played Grand Theft Auto you little shit."

Or if George Zimmerman had perhaps listened to the 911 operator who specifically told him not to follow Trayvon Martin...

That statement would be incorrect, actually. The 911 operator advised him that he was not legally obligated to follow him, which means that Zimmerman could continue but he did not have to. Under Florida law, he was legally permitted to follow him if he so chose to do so. The 911 operator did not have authority to issue him lawful orders of that sort, anyhow.

That said, I agree that the circumstances seem to have escalated significantly at that point, but, that there were a number of factors none of us are privy to. There's a severe lack of evidence, one way or another. It's why he was, ultimately, acquitted.

Actually, he's half Peruvian on his mother's side and half white (of German descent) on his father's side.

Derigin wrote:

That statement would be incorrect, actually...

Huh. You know, living three counties away from the city this all took place in, you're think our news stations would be a little more accurate on reporting this stuff. Even when talking about the acquittal tonight, our news station mentioned Zimmerman as Mexican.

_________________One part the Führer, one part the Pope

inhumanist wrote:

"Fuck you, little Omar. Your school got reduced to rubble by an IDF missile, but Allah still gives you hope you say? Well that's just because you've never played Grand Theft Auto you little shit."

I thought it was embarrassing and highly unprofessional for the police's and prosecutors' offices to determine there was no need to press charges on him and then, after being politically bludgeoned to death by self-important race hustlers (some of whom badly needed higher ratings on their TV shows, I might add), effectively put this man's life and liberty at stake by bullshitting a criminal charge against him. It's horrifying that it doesn't take anything more than pressure from pundits to ignore the law and put someone on trial. I mean yeah, they reached the right verdict anyway, but it never should have gotten that far in the first place.

And before anyone with no life-or-death experiences chimes in with some sappy whiny comment about the fact that Martin was unarmed I'll just ask: at that point, what was Zimmerman supposed to do? Forget about his misguided adventure to follow a complete stranger, nobody disagrees that was dumb but it's not relevant to the legal discussion. What was he supposed to do once a complete stranger had him pinned to the ground with his knees and was hitting him in the face? Allow himself to get beat up? Fighting is not like the movies kids, and it sure as hell isn't like TV. If any single one of your favorite action heroes got hit in real life as hard as they do in the movies more than once in such a short time, they would either be brain dead or just dead. Period. End of story. The human head is not that strong and neither is the neck for that matter. Every year thousands of people get permanent life-altering brain injuries from fistfights.

And you have no way of knowing if the person is trying to rob you or kill you or whatever, either. So you do whatever you have to to live. Don't like the way that sounds, tough shit, that's the way it is. You can avoid it by not starting fights outside a boxing ring without any gloves on, walking away from suspicious people, and definitely by not tracking suspicious people like some urban John Wayne wannabe fuckwit like Zimmerman apparently is.

_________________It's always the halos and the wings that keep you blind.

Zodijackyl wrote:

nobody believes your bedroom black metal band is actually a woman in Iraq

And before anyone with no life-or-death experiences chimes in with some sappy whiny comment about the fact that Martin was unarmed I'll just ask: at that point, what was Zimmerman supposed to do? Forget about his misguided adventure to follow a complete stranger, nobody disagrees that was dumb but it's not relevant to the legal discussion. What was he supposed to do once a complete stranger had him pinned to the ground with his knees and was hitting him in the face? Allow himself to get beat up? Fighting is not like the movies kids, and it sure as hell isn't like TV. If any single one of your favorite action heroes got hit in real life as hard as they do in the movies more than once in such a short time, they would either be brain dead or just dead. Period. End of story. The human head is not that strong and neither is the neck for that matter. Every year thousands of people get permanent life-altering brain injuries from fistfights.

At the same time there's a lot about Zimmerman's account of that fight that I just don't buy. For example, if Martin was on his chest and beating the shit out of him in a totally one-sided way, how was Zimmerman able to get his gun out and shoot Martin directly in the chest?

_________________

MorbidBlood wrote:

So the winner is Destruction and Infernal Overkill is the motherfucking skullcrushing poserkilling satan-worshiping 666 FUCK YOU greatest german thrash record.

I'm not sure I understand the complaint about the dinner thing. It sounds like the media was following the case really closely all day and people were expecting an outcome when it was announced they were taking a break for dinner or whatever.

At the same time there's a lot about Zimmerman's account of that fight that I just don't buy. For example, if Martin was on his chest and beating the shit out of him in a totally one-sided way, how was Zimmerman able to get his gun out and shoot Martin directly in the chest?

Or the complete mess of an interview Zimmerman gave in the days following the shooting. Esquire had a blog up detailing the PR nightmare Zimmerman put forth with the interview, and even included the interview audio. It's worth a read/listen, if you can look past the now incredibly ironic title.

_________________One part the Führer, one part the Pope

inhumanist wrote:

"Fuck you, little Omar. Your school got reduced to rubble by an IDF missile, but Allah still gives you hope you say? Well that's just because you've never played Grand Theft Auto you little shit."

I'm waiting for Nancy Grace to go into a detailed analysis of what each juror ate and why it impacted their decision in the verdict. Then she'll have 4 or 5 of her yes-men and women on to agree with her on everything.

Actually, he's half Peruvian on his mother's side and half white (of German descent) on his father's side.

Derigin wrote:

That statement would be incorrect, actually...

Huh. You know, living three counties away from the city this all took place in, you're think our news stations would be a little more accurate on reporting this stuff. Even when talking about the acquittal tonight, our news station mentioned Zimmerman as Mexican.

Yeah, that has always irked me and I encounter that alot lately these days. Strange it would be reported in Florida where Cubans make up most of the Latino demographic there. It seems here in the States, "Mexican" is increasingly used as a blanket term for Hispanics or Latin Americans straightaway as to distinguish them from white when in truth there are plenty of white people from those Latin countries. But in the case of Zimmerman, those who are referring to him as 'not white' seem to just mean non-Anglo. I don't know.

I don't understand. He shot a guy who bore no gun. Strange laws there in the States. And it took six whole weeks to arrest him! He's propably not going to walk safely in his homestreets from now on. Some angry fellow is going to get him for sure, unless he has some bodyguard with him or something.

It really couldn't be any simpler: No proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Can't convict someone. Especially when talking about something serious as murder/manslaughter. The jury deemed the evidence to be lacking so they set him free. The end.

It really couldn't be any simpler: No proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Can't convict someone. Especially when talking about something serious as murder/manslaughter. The jury deemed the evidence to be lacking so they set him free. The end.

This whole case was sour from the start, but this is what it came down to. The guy's a dolt, but Travyon himself wasn't the picture-perfect kid the media makes him out to be, either. The prosecution messed up big time, though, and that's what it comes down to.

What kills me about this though is groups like the NAACP having attempted to influence this from the start. That's one group that I thoroughly dislike, muddying the facts and misinforming the public.

ScandalfTheShite wrote:

I don't understand. He shot a guy who bore no gun. Strange laws there in the States. And it took six whole weeks to arrest him! He's probably not going to walk safely in his homestreets from now on. Some angry fellow is going to get him for sure, unless he has some bodyguard with him or something.

Then there's this. Yeah, it's strange that even though you can trace these events to Zimmerman as the guy who started the ball rolling. The beatdown portion of the story, regardless of Zimmerman asking for it or not, was on Trayvon and the account was in Zimmerman's favor. Legally, he did have a right to defend himself and the jury believed it to be life-threatening.

Too bad there's a portion of the public who will never let this go.

_________________

gomorro wrote:

Yesterday was the birthday of school pal and I met the chick of my sigh (I've talked about here before, the she-wolf I use to be inlove with)... Maaan she was using a mini-skirt too damn insane... Dude you could saw her entire soul every time she sit...

The only reason he was even arrested and charged to begin with was because of the lynch mob that is the court of public opinion demanded it. If people didn't react so goddamned crazy to this as they did, there would have been no trial and Zimmerman wouldn't hafta walk in fear of being attacked every day for a long time now.

The media bias in this was quite frankly, hilarious, if entirely typical. And I'm glad Zimmerman was not found guilty, but now he has to live with the death threats from people angry that a known scumbag was put out of his misery.

I don't even want to watch Cenk Uyger's response to the verdict, because I know that he's gonna be idiotically liberal about it. Hell, the headline I read about it said that he said that the verdict is a massive victory for pro gun folks. Only a true liberal would think about it in terms like that.

I don't even want to watch Cenk Uyger's response to the verdict, because I know that he's gonna be idiotically liberal about it. Hell, the headline I read about it said that he said that the verdict is a massive victory for pro gun folks. Only a true liberal would think about it in terms like that.

Even with my pro-gun control opinions, I'm of sound enough mind to know that not all gun owners are raving lunatics that just want to shoot everybody that they see for the sake of it. Cenk annoys me like that in that he's VERY black or white on certain issues, such as guns.

I followed the trial a little bit and I agree that he should not be charged with murder. It could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. If I recall correctly when I first heard about this incident a long time ago the 911 dispatcher instructed Zimmerman to not follow the teenager. Zimmerman ignored this, likely scared the teen by following him and caused Trayvon to attack him, or Zimmerman attacked, but could not be proven. Either way Zimmerman should not have followed the teen and he should be charged to some degree for instigating it.

_________________In reference to Baby Metal

tanabata wrote:

I heard one of the moderators blacklisted them because of his subjective opinion. Well If that is the case, you sir have shit taste and you ain't my nigga!

In Chile, Zimmerman would be put in jail, regardless if his life was on the line or not. Give thanks you have such justice system. Still, from what I've read, I think Zimmerman had its share on the outcome of the whole thing (provocation or something should be taken into account if exists there) but the end is that Martin was beating the shit out of him, so that's what finally matters.

I personally had to deal with a similar situation on the past, but I managed to hit the guy and run. Still, when you're being attacked, you need to make sure the guy won't follow you and that's why you a) beat the shit out of him enough to have time to run or b) if you have an arm and the guy is stronger than you, use it. That's common sense to me.

What I find strange is that looks like everyone has a gun on the US. I'm on the side of more guns = more chances to fuck up everything. Gun control should be way tighter there and only grant permission to have a gun for really justified motives, let alone to carry it with you!

I'm not sure how is there, but here no one can carry a gun on the street, no matter if you have permission to have it or not. Only the police can, unless you're a professional shooter who have a license of a certified shooter's club to carry it with sport purposes. The permissions for holding guns here are for 1 year and gun holders needs to renew it every year. Psychological tests are done, interviews with the police and finally you need are very, very good reason to justify to have a gun. To simply 'protect your family' here is not enough; unless you live in a 'hot zone' and you've been threatened on the past or other more extreme conditions, it won't be granted.

Into the racial stuff: Chile and Argentina are totally full on white people. Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Brazil have more native population.

This right here. If ever there was an O.J. Simpson for the new generation, it's George Zimmerman. Opinions on this case will be divided for years to come.

And I read today that people had small riots (if you can even call them that) in Oakland. Breaking windows, starting tiny fires in the streets, burning flags, spray painting cars. Which puzzles me, since, even here in Central Florida where the case took place, no one did anything at all.

_________________One part the Führer, one part the Pope

inhumanist wrote:

"Fuck you, little Omar. Your school got reduced to rubble by an IDF missile, but Allah still gives you hope you say? Well that's just because you've never played Grand Theft Auto you little shit."

So I am just going to put in my opinion even though it's probably been said.

Originally the police were going to charge Zimmerman with Manslaughter, which according to my mother who has been on top of this case like a vulture, carries 10-30 years with a deadly weapon. A lot of people complained that the judicial system failed or that the jury believed the defense's story when trials and prosecutions do not work like that. In order to convict Zimmerman there needed to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he committed Murder, not manslaughter. Since it looks like there was a lack of really hard evidence they couldn't convict him of that charge BUT since he wasn't charged for Manslaughter (which they could have easily convicted him for as well as a lesser charge like assault or something) he could be in jail seeing some form of time.

Of course, no one knew this was going to happen. People think they know what happened when no one was there. I have not heard of an eye witness who was standing right next to Trayvon and Zimmerman when it happened. Was this an issue of racial profiling that turned into murder? Perhaps. No one is saying that Zimmerman didn't shoot him, but why he did is what was going to convict him. The prosecution fucked up in my opinion. If they had him with Manslaughter and Assault, he could have been faced with 15 years minimum possibly. People need to accept the facts and get going. I am sure there is someone who is going to die tonight who will never get their face on the news for more then 1 minute, some girl who is going to get raped who will never see justice. Yet all we care about is some guy got away with killing a kid that happened over a year ago.

I'm not saying anything new but I just need to get that out there. People who are upset should be upset, kind of a upsetting outcome but it probably could have been handled a lot better.

I know very well that this is going to get crushed as an invalid argument by the pro-gun US folks, but has anyone given any thought to the fact that Zimmerman having a gun in the first place was probably a big influence on his idiotic and extremely provocative behaviour? I mean, from what I've heard (not much, mind you, I don't give a fuck of people outside Europe shooting each other any more), he seems like one of those people with minuscule genitalia who gain more unfounded confidence than actual protection by carrying a gun. How many here think he would have followed/harassed the kid without a firearm? My bet is on "no", and very heavily so.

Yeah, you can say that gun ownership translates to safety, but this particular incident, in my very humble opinion, shows some signs of the mere existence of the gun itself leading to deadly confrontation.

Also, what would have been the verdict with the same evidence, had Zimmerman been beaten to death by an unarmed youngster while carrying a gun and confronting him, assuming, say, the weapon jamming or some other fuck up? In my eyes, acquitting the youngster would have been the only option, given that he was probably threatened by an armed and aggressive man and the stand you ground laws and whatever, but somehow I smell "death row" in here...

This right here. If ever there was an O.J. Simpson for the new generation, it's George Zimmerman. Opinions on this case will be divided for years to come.

And I read today that people had small riots (if you can even call them that) in Oakland. Breaking windows, starting tiny fires in the streets, burning flags, spray painting cars. Which puzzles me, since, even here in Central Florida where the case took place, no one did anything at all.

Because nothing says "we don't agree with the court" better than destroying the property of completely unrelated people....Ugh, people really are clueless.

I agree with Napero. I'm almost certain that Zimmerman wouldn't have confronted Trayvon if he wasn't sporting a gun in the first place. Guns give people a false sense of confidence and righteousness that can lead (and does lead) to people getting killed in situations where it wouldn't have been necessary.

The only reason he was even arrested and charged to begin with was because of the lynch mob that is the court of public opinion demanded it. If people didn't react so goddamned crazy to this as they did, there would have been no trial and Zimmerman wouldn't hafta walk in fear of being attacked every day for a long time now.

Subrick wrote:

I don't even want to watch Cenk Uyger's response to the verdict, because I know that he's gonna be idiotically liberal about it. Hell, the headline I read about it said that he said that the verdict is a massive victory for pro gun folks. Only a true liberal would think about it in terms like that.

x 10

Earthcubed wrote:

Forget about his misguided adventure to follow a complete stranger, nobody disagrees that was dumb but it's not relevant to the legal discussion.

Only because Florida is warped beyond human decency. His "misguided adventure" had everything to do with what caused a young man's life to end tragically.

_________________

Markeri, in 2013 wrote:

you can debate the actual date that metal began, but a fairly agreed upon date is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old

Extreme_violence wrote:

Why Iron maiden is there? It's very far to be metal than a lot of some metal band.

Agreed with Napero too. And not everyone sporting a gun are trained marines, how you actually react in a situation can be highly unpredictable. Having a gun gives you confidence, but at the same time you're not necessary ready or trained to deal with a situation.

Huh. You know, living three counties away from the city this all took place in, you're think our news stations would be a little more accurate on reporting this stuff. Even when talking about the acquittal tonight, our news station mentioned Zimmerman as Mexican.

Yeah are news media is to busy editing the 911 call to make Zimmerman sound racesit to report the facts. In fact just to show you how much they don't care about the facts of cases like this look up Nancy Grace and how she talked about the men in this case:

Fun fact: I myself am a liberal. However, I'm able to gauge when someone is being too liberal for their own good. Cenk Uyger, as much as I enjoy listening to him talk, can be way too liberal on certain subjects for my tastes. I believe the wording I used was "Cenk annoys me like that in that he's VERY black or white on certain issues, such as guns."

Also, I did not use "goddamned" in an inflammatory manner, therefore bringing up my usage of the word is moot.

To clarify a bit, things actually vary by a huge amount from state to state in the US. Some US states have more strict gun control laws than others. This can cover a wide range of things, too, such as what types of guns are legal to own, how easy it is to purchase guns and whether or not you're permitted to carry one in public (either concealed or openly). Some places are extremely strict. For instance, the laws in Washington DC sound pretty similar to what you described in Chile, with almost no one having the ability to carry a concealed handgun with a tiny number of exceptions.

However, Florida has pretty loose gun control laws in general, which, combined with the controversial Stand Your Ground law (which allows you to use deadly force in self defense even if deadly force isn't necessarily being used against you) allows for situations like this to happen. There are even more extreme examples, such as Texas, where you can legally shoot to kill thieves, even if they're not on your property or stealing your stuff:

Fun fact: I myself am a liberal. However, I'm able to gauge when someone is being too liberal for their own good. Cenk Uyger, as much as I enjoy listening to him talk, can be way too liberal on certain subjects for my tastes. I believe the wording I used was "Cenk annoys me like that in that he's VERY black or white on certain issues, such as guns."

Also, I did not use "goddamned" in an inflammatory manner, therefore bringing up my usage of the word is moot.

You call people who disagree with you "goddamned crazy" and "idiotically liberal". How is that not inflammatory language? I'm not offended by that kind of language myself, only by your hypocrisy. So yeah, fuck off.

_________________

Markeri, in 2013 wrote:

you can debate the actual date that metal began, but a fairly agreed upon date is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old

Extreme_violence wrote:

Why Iron maiden is there? It's very far to be metal than a lot of some metal band.

My usage of both words was as adjectives, so to say that the reaction itself was "goddamned crazy" rather than the people themselves and that the opinion of Cenk Uyger on the subject is over the top, or "idiotic"; Cenk Uyger is not an idiot by any stretch of the imagination, but he, as I've said twice now, holds very black or white opinions on some issues.. There are plenty of sane, usually rational people that are going completely overboard when it comes to this subject, and that's what my usage of those words was for.

I definitely agree that a second-degree murder charge shouldn't have been laid as in this case it's almost impossible to prove in court. They should have gone with manslaughter. Like the eventual arrest itself, I feel that the second-degree murder charge was because of public opinion. The prosecution really didn't do a good job at proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's story was not true. Yes, he obviously shouldn't have racially profiled and followed Zimmerman, but in terms of the law that doesn't mean he surrenders the right to self defence if attacked (and who knows what really happened, besides Zimmerman of course). The prosecution spent too much time attacking Zimmerman's character and not enough time proving his story false. Their star witness was caught lying under oath and she unfortunately didn't perform very well. The eyewitnesses said that it looked like Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and one said it looked like he might have been throwing punches. I don't think that the acquittal had anything to do with race, more to do with a charge being laid that was pretty hard to find concrete evidence to support it and the witnesses ending up being more of a help to the defence.

Subrick wrote:

I don't even want to watch Cenk Uyger's response to the verdict, because I know that he's gonna be idiotically liberal about it. Hell, the headline I read about it said that he said that the verdict is a massive victory for pro gun folks. Only a true liberal would think about it in terms like that.

I thought his response was relatively reasonable, especially for the first little bit, but the one thing I really don't understand how this would set a national precedent for what is allowed in terms of self defence. In general, he does get a bit too liberal for me at times, especially on gun control, but he has the perfect personality to do what he does and I do feel that he calls people in positions of power out for things that usually get swept under the rug. Also, I've noticed he'll occasionally have a more conservative opinion on a specific issue than his co-hosts.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I still agree with him on a whole lot of things and he's incredibly entertaining to watch on TYT, but this is a subject that I just knew I would have the opposite opinion with him on, hence my hesitation in watching his video statement.

I think a lot of the issue is misunderstanding the laws of Florida from an outside viewpoint- my wording might be a bit off here, as I'm from Texas, so bear with me- as I understand it, in Florida, you can use deadly force on someone who physically attacks you or threatens 'life or property', which includes following them away from the scene to use it. So, that makes the whole thing a little bit rough to prove. The question was never whether Zimmerman killed Trayvon, which is how many make it out, but whether or not he legally killed him.

_________________\m/-Power Metal, because its not manly unless you are shirtless when you destroy your enemies.Also, DOOM.